We wrote previously about the California Court of Appeal affirming the vexatious litigant order against Mr. Kinder’s TCPA litigation over the 619-999-9999 telephone number.

 

http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=1247

 

That followed an earlier report regarding an auto finance company’s defeat of Mr. Kinder in small claims court on the basis that he had assumed the risk of calls by his continued use of that telephone number and could state no TCPA claim.

 

http://www.calautofinance.com/?p=679

 

 

Approximately two weeks after the Court of Appeal affirmed the vexatious litigant order, Mr. Kinder ‘leased’ the telephone to Susan Greene, who, shortly thereafter, filed suit against a number of defendants under the TCPA. Mr. Kinder attended the hearing as her ‘expert’.  The trial court found against Ms. Greene.

 

A redacted version of the small claims trial brief we prepared that was submitted by the automobile finance company can be found here.

Greene filed a lengthy ‘Motion to Correct’, which is improper under the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules of Court. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 116.710(a); Parada v. Superior Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 766, 769 (“Both the small claims court and the superior court were in error in the basis upon which relief was denied to Parada. That, however, does not resolve the matter. [Current section 116.710(a)] provided at the applicable time that a plaintiff in a small claims action may not appeal from an adverse judgment . . . Inherent in this scheme is, as is the case herein, the possibility of an occasional error of law that will be uncorrectable.”).